9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 146 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - discharge of legally enforceable debt or not - rebuttal of presumption or not - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT - The Court, in the present case, is called upon to give verdict upon factual aspects of the matter which are required to be decided in trial Court. The truth can be unfolded after the evidence is lead in the matter. The proceedings cannot be allowed to be truncated and curtain brought down on the same only for the reason that the petitioners may have some defense which requires consideration in the trial. The argument is also raised that the respondent herein has not controverted the stand taken by the petitioners herein qua the application filed for dropping of proceedings before the trial court and therefore, the complaint is without basis - the Court finds no reason either to interfere in the order dated 19.05.2012, passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed for dropping of proceedings exemption to the applicants therein, was dismissed. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Petition to quash proceedings under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioners sought to quash proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, challenging the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint alleged non-encashment of a cheque issued by the petitioners, leading to legal action. 2. The complaint accused the petitioners of issuing a cheque that was not honored, despite work allegedly being completed satisfactorily. The petitioners contended coercion in obtaining the cheque and claimed no remaining liability post a prior bill settlement. 3. The petitioners argued that the complaint was baseless, citing judgments where courts quashed proceedings based on specific circumstances. They alleged the complaint was an abuse of process, emphasizing the absurdity of the allegations. 4. Legal counsel for the petitioners referenced previous cases where courts emphasized the need for a fair trial without prematurely discharging the accused. The defense highlighted the importance of allowing evidence presentation before final judgments. 5. The defense relied on legal guidelines for courts' inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to support their argument that the complaint was an abuse of process. 6. The respondent's counsel argued that the documents presented by the petitioners did not warrant quashing the complaint, emphasizing the need for a trial to establish facts conclusively. 7. The defense pointed to a letter allegedly showing forced issuance of the cheque, suggesting coercion by the respondent in obtaining it. 8. The court noted that the contents of the letter did not conclusively support the petitioners' argument and should be considered within the trial's context for a fair assessment. 9. The defense cited a money receipt issued after the cheque, implying the petitioners' reliance on post-cheque documents. The court emphasized the need for a trial to assess the documents' relevance. 10. The court rejected the argument that the complaint lacked details on the cheque's purpose, stating that the nature of the liability could be established during the trial, with a presumption that the cheque was issued to discharge a legal obligation. 11. Reference was made to a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing that disputed factual issues should be resolved through evidence presentation rather than quashing complaints prematurely. 12. The defense's claim of forced signing of cheques was deemed a matter for trial, not suitable for resolution in the current petition. 13. The court found no merit in the petitioners' argument that the trial court's order lacked proper consideration, affirming that the order was legally sound. 14. The court emphasized the need for a full trial to uncover the truth and rejected premature conclusions based on defenses that required trial assessment. 15. The court dismissed the argument that the respondent failed to counter the petitioners' claims, noting that detailed replies were filed, and the trial court's decision to proceed was justified. 16. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to determine the factual aspects of the case thoroughly.
|
